I see you trying to create a new thread to avoid the problems you have in this one and I don't care.
Respond if you can to what was already written.
You will need to work out what your position on propositions that entail other propositions is. You will not be able to get around it by trying to claim Kant thinks you are allowed to be in disagreement with yourself any more than hoping that Skepdick's endorsement helps you.
You relied on time and context shifts in order to resolve your problems with logically contradictory statements. That's fine when it works. But it doesn't work here because a moral fact is, unless you really want to bite that bullet, timeless.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:10 pm
this is a discussion about the logical relationship between propositions, why are you getting sidetracked with infantile nonsense?
as a matter of extremely fucking simple logic, each of those statements ENTAILS that the other is untrue.
Well for that you deserve some of Skepdick's totally useful information about non-Euclidian geometry.
I'm more interested in the obvious bulllshit numbers you are using.
Seriously, is the concept of entailment too difficult for you to get?
What is so problematic with 'entailment'?
There shouldn't be much of an issue, but you don't seem to understand it.
An entailment is something that must be the case if X is the case.
so if X is the case, and X is "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal", then IT MUST BE THE CASE BECAUSE ENTAILMENT THAT: "drowning puppies in the toilet is not morally wrong". Do you understand entialment?
So because of that entailment, it must be the case that "drowning puppies for pleasure or profit is horrible and wrong" is an incorrect statement if X was correct.
Therefore you cannot have a true situation in which there is truth to both...
X: "there are no moral outcomes to interactions between man and animal"
And Y: "getting your dig to lick peanut butter off your nutsack is an abominable activity"
This is a matter of absolutes. There cannot be 20% truth that dog fellatio is naughty.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements.
A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises?[1] All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.
-WIKI
If your first premise is vulnerable to be ambiguous how can your syllogism entail any solid conclusion?
Which first premise is ambiguous?
Have I presented any syllogisms in this thread?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 5:36 am
Btw, as I had quoted Kant,
"the advantage of logic is merely due to its limitations"
"Kant in CPR" wrote:That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form.
But for Reason to enter on the sure path of Science is, of course, much more difficult, since it has to deal not with itself alone but also with Objects.
Logic, therefore, as a propaedeutic, forms, as it were, only the vestibule of the sciences; and when we are concerned with specific Modes of Knowledge, while Logic is indeed presupposed in any critical estimate of them, yet for the actual acquiring of them {knowledge} we have to look to the sciences properly so called, that is, to the Objective Sciences.
CPR -Bix
Thus no matter how solid is the logical argument it is fundamentally limited.
You deny above or is logic your 'God'?
Lol. sort out your basic logic before trying stunts like that on me.
You don't want to end up like Skepdick desperately arguing that he doesn't need to agree with himself to be right do you?